Our Last Best Chance_ The Pursuit of Peace in a Time of Peril - King Abdullah II [138]
Direct negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis followed. They tackled the final status issues of borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and security, with a view to delivering a final settlement. The talks, which proceeded on the understanding that “nothing is agreed until all is agreed,” appeared to be making some headway, especially on the essential issue of borders. The discussions were thorough and detailed, and the two sides exchanged maps and were negotiating the percentage of land to be swapped within the context of a final agreement. But the talks lost momentum in July when Olmert’s authority was undermined by charges of corruption that forced him to announce his resignation.
Abbas’s authority was also undermined by Hamas’s electoral victory, which had opened another front. The 2006 elections had divided the Palestinian leadership, leaving Gaza under the full control of Hamas and the West Bank under Fatah’s control. Gaza was in continual confrontation with Israel until Egypt succeeded in brokering a truce in June 2008. Popular pressure was mounting for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. But that would prove an extremely difficult task.
In hindsight, a Palestinian election in which Hamas took part created more problems than it solved. And, as with the Iraqi elections the previous year, sometimes the democratic process throws up surprises.
Chapter 25
The Mask Slips
Iraq’s first general elections were held one year before the Palestinian elections, on January 30, 2005. Parties were competing for seats in a Transitional National Assembly, which would draft a new constitution to be submitted to the Iraqi people. The likely victory of Shia political parties backed by Iran had led to talk of a strengthening of Shia power throughout the region. Iran was thought to be providing money and support to one or more of these parties, and many in the region feared that it was plotting to stage a behind-the-scenes takeover of Iraqi politics. The Sunni community in Iraq, unwilling to trust a process that they believed was being rigged to marginalize them, decided to boycott the elections. This proved to be a big mistake.
Just over a month before the election I was interviewed on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Matthews asked me my opinion of the upcoming Iraqi election, and in particular the implications of a radical Shia victory. I said:
The worst outcome is, you don’t have a secular state. In other words, the new government is strongly represented by those who might have support from Iran. We hope that’s not the case. As you are aware, there’s an issue of the Sunnis; we want them to go to the elections, we want them to be part of the process. If they’re not, then there could be more difficulties.
In those days I often expressed my concerns about the area covering the old Levant and the Fertile Crescent, an area stretching from Syria and Lebanon to Iraq and Iran. During that interview with Chris Matthews, the image of a crescent popped into my head as a good metaphor for the potential spread of Iranian influence. “If it was a Shia-led Iraq that had a special relationship with Iran, and you look at that relationship with Syria and Hezbollah and Lebanon,” I said, “then we have this new crescent that appears that will be very destabilizing for the Gulf countries and for the whole region.”
After that interview, all hell broke loose. I was criticized by many people for being anti-Shia. The Iraqi politician Abdul Aziz Hakim, the head of the Shia party SCIRI (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq), who had spent many years in exile in Iran, called the idea of Iranian influence in Iraqi politics “ridiculous.” But by then no one doubted that Iran was actively meddling